ARIZARD-L Archives

Archiver > ARIZARD > 2002-03 > 1015533368


From: Jean Mayfield Cuevas <>
Subject: Re: [ARIZARD-L] 1870 Izard?
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:36:08 -0500
In-Reply-To: <004c01c1c5ef$ffa2cec0$8c450244@ph.cox.net>


Bernie,

My copy of the 1870 census doesn't list the date that it was
taken. However, it IS Samuel in this translation.

IF this were John and Mary's children, then that means that John was 15
when Rebecca Jane was born, 16 when Samantha was born, and 18 when Samuel
was born.

I just took a look back and read some old notes from you, Bernie, so I see
...these are John's step-children. Samuel would be the more logical
choice, but who knows! Samuel was also a common DENTON name.

According to the 1880 census, Samantha was a DENTON:

FRANKS John M 36 **** Farmer AL TN MS
67/67 Mary F 39 wife Keeping House AR AR TN
Martha F 13 daughter AR AL AR
James M 11 son AR AL AR
Catherine F 10 daughter AR AL AR
Allice F 8 daughter AR AL AR
Henry M 6 son AR AL AR
Sarah F 4 daughter AR AL AR
Robert M 2 son AR AL AR
DENTON Samantha F 19 step-dau AR AR AR

So, unless something was going on between them before, it appears that all
the children older than Samanta would belong to the DENTON husband. :)

Jean




At 08:51 AM 3/7/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Joyce or is it Jean?
>
>(I hate to always bother Joyce.) How about I try this angle. When was
>this census taken?
>
>1870 Izard Co., Arkansas Census, Union Township, Page 253:
>FRANKS, John 25 MS
>#163/165 Mary 26 AR
> Rebecca Jane 10 AR >>>>>>>>> DENTON
> Samantha 9 AR >>>>>>>>>>> DENTON
> Samual J. 7 AR >>>>>>>>>>>>> DENTON
> Martha 4 AR
> James T. 1 AR
> Cintha 2/12 AR b. Mar
>
>And if you can tell whether Samuel is a "Samuel" or a "Lemuel?"
>
>Sure is puzzling. I recall asking Janet Trettrick (Franks researcher that
>descends from this line.) whether Samuel aka Lemuel (went by the name of
>Jeff) was a Denton or a Franks by birth and she said that she really knew
>that he was a Denton.
>
>But, wanted your opinion on the interpretation of of his given name on
>this 1870 census. Too bad that there is not an 1865 census (smile).
>
>



This thread: